Skip to main content
WUHLD
← Back to insights

Building a Defensible Quality Assurance Framework for Will Writing Practices

· 22 min

Executive Summary

Will writing quality assurance has reached an inflection point. The SRA's December 2024 thematic review of probate and estate administration revealed that only 15 of 25 firms maintained written competence policies, while just 9 of 30 reviewed files showed evidence of supervision. Legal Ombudsman data compounds this picture: wills and probate complaints rose 28% in 2024/25, with an 81% evidence-of-poor-service rate by Q1 2025/26. Concurrently, the Law Commission's May 2025 Modernising Wills report and draft Bill propose structural reforms including electronic wills and a statutory capacity test. Against this regulatory convergence, practices require a documented, risk-based quality assurance framework that addresses current compliance obligations under the SRA Standards and Regulations, aligns with WIQS and STEP Code benchmarks, and maintains forward compatibility with prospective legislative change.

1. The Regulatory Imperative: Evidence of Systemic Quality Gaps

The case for a structured quality assurance framework rests on converging evidence from three independent regulatory data sources, each pointing to systemic process-level failures rather than isolated incidents of poor work. Critically, the evidence does not suggest endemic incompetence. The SRA thematic review acknowledged areas of good practice, including consistent approaches to vulnerability identification and payment authorisation. The failures are overwhelmingly failures of documentation and process -- precisely the gaps a quality assurance framework is designed to close.

1.1 SRA Thematic Review Findings

The SRA's thematic review of probate and estate administration, published 13 December 2024, examined 25 firms and produced findings that warrant close attention from every private client practice.1 The review revealed that only 15 of 25 firms had written continuing competence policies. More concerning, in 7 of those 15 firms, the relevant person was unaware the policy existed. At the individual practitioner level, 6 of 10 fee earners were unaware of their continuing competence obligations, despite 19 of 23 heads of department reporting that they understood the requirements.2

Supervision documentation proved equally deficient. Only 9 of 30 reviewed files showed evidence of supervision, yet all fee earners believed supervision was adequate.3 This disconnect between perceived and documented oversight represents a significant litigation risk: in a negligence claim, the absence of contemporaneous supervision records may undermine a firm's defence regardless of the substantive quality of work performed. The SRA further found that 12 of 25 heads of department received no oversight or peer review themselves, creating an unbroken chain of undocumented supervision from the most junior to the most senior levels of practice.

The review also identified governance gaps in executor appointments. Only 12 of 23 firms acting as executors had conflict-of-interest controls, and just 10 of 21 firms conducted background checks on existing staff.1 Three instances of potential misconduct were referred for investigation, two involving accountant's report failures and one concerning anti-money laundering non-compliance. On client information, while 24 of 30 files explained probate processes to clients, only 12 explained the role of a personal representative -- a gap that directly exposes firms to the communication-failure complaints dominating Legal Ombudsman data.

Legal Ombudsman data reinforces the SRA's findings with quantitative evidence of service failures reaching clients. In 2024/25, wills and probate was the second-most complained about area of law, with 1,128 complaints accepted -- a 28% year-on-year increase representing 245 additional complaints.4 The poor-service evidence rate reached 76% across the full year, rising to 81% in Q1 2025/26, the highest of any practice area.5 The Q1 data also revealed the highest poor complaint-handling rate at 58%, up from 47% in Q3 2024/25 and 52% in Q4 2024/25, indicating a deteriorating trajectory in firms' first-line complaint responses.

Q2 2025/26 data reveals a persistent pattern in the nature of complaints: poor communication accounted for 25% of upheld complaints, delay complaints rose for the fifth consecutive quarter at 19%, and cost complaints increased for the third consecutive quarter at 13%.6 Total remedies awarded across all legal practice areas reached GBP 3,708,674 in 2024/25.4 These are process failures, not competence failures -- addressable through quality management systems rather than additional technical training alone.

The broader probate disputes environment adds further context: over 11,000 attempts to block probate were recorded in 2024/25, representing a 56% increase since 2019.7 Rising contestation amplifies the consequences of inadequate file documentation and quality controls, as disputed estates face closer scrutiny of the drafting solicitor's process and capacity assessment.

1.3 Compensation Fund Exposure

The financial dimension reinforces the regulatory picture. The SRA Compensation Fund received 2,859 claims in the year ended October 2024, with open claims totalling GBP 51.5 million against net assets of GBP 44.7 million.8 Probate has generated some of the largest historical Compensation Fund payments. Individual solicitor contributions tripled to GBP 90 (from GBP 30), and firm contributions rose to GBP 2,220 (from GBP 660), reflecting the Fund's exposure profile. The SRA's increasing use of targeted thematic reviews alongside its established Risk Outlook publications suggests a regulatory approach favouring deeper, practice-level scrutiny.1 Practices with demonstrable quality frameworks reduce not only their own risk but also the collective cost imposed on the profession.

2. The Current Quality Architecture: Three Complementary Frameworks

Effective quality assurance does not require inventing new standards. Three established frameworks collectively address the full spectrum of will writing quality requirements, from regulatory compliance through operational best practice to membership obligations. The challenge for practices lies not in the absence of standards but in their integration: each framework addresses different aspects of quality, and no single framework is sufficient in isolation.

2.1 SRA Regulatory Framework

The SRA Code of Conduct for Solicitors, effective 11 April 2025, provides the mandatory baseline.9 Paragraph 3.3 requires solicitors to maintain their competence and keep professional knowledge and skills up to date. Paragraph 3.5 requires accounting for each client's attributes, needs, and circumstances. The Code of Conduct for Firms, at paragraphs 4.3 and 4.4, imposes corresponding obligations on firms to ensure supervised staff remain competent through effective oversight systems. The distinction between individual and firm-level obligations is material: a firm cannot discharge its paragraph 4.3 responsibilities by relying solely on individual solicitors' self-directed competence.

The SRA Principles, also effective 11 April 2025, establish the overarching ethical framework, with Principle 7 requiring all regulated persons to act in the best interests of each client -- directly relevant to executor appointment conflicts and the quality of testamentary advice.10

The SRA's specific guidance on drafting and preparation of wills identifies four categories of quality failure: inadequacy (incomplete coverage of an estate), legality (provisions contravening law), inconsistency (contradictory language or logic), and insufficient detail (omission of items, persons, or testamentary requests).11 This taxonomy provides a structured basis for internal file review checklists and converts the regulator's own quality expectations into auditable operational criteria.

2.2 WIQS Accreditation

The Law Society's Wills and Inheritance Quality Scheme, launched in 2013, represents the most comprehensive quality mark available to practices.12 Accreditation requires compliance with the Wills and Inheritance Protocol, adoption of Core Practice Management Standards (based on Lexcel), mandatory training, self-reporting obligations, random audits, and annual re-accreditation review. The assessment process takes six to eight weeks, and the senior responsible officer must hold at least three years' experience in will drafting and estate administration.

The WIQS Client Charter commits accredited firms to specific service standards including responding to client questions within 48 hours, providing tailored services, explaining costs and timescales transparently, and refraining from making misleading claims about the advantages of making a will.12 These commitments directly address the communication and cost transparency failures identified in Legal Ombudsman complaints data. Practices seeking accreditation should note that the WIQS assessment evaluates not merely the existence of policies but their implementation in practice -- a standard that the SRA thematic review found many firms had not met even for their own internal competence documentation.

2.3 STEP Code for Will Preparation

The STEP Code for Will Preparation, effective since 1 April 2014, comprises 12 principles covering transparency on costs and terms, ethical business practices, conflicts of interest, and confidentiality.13 Compliance is a condition of STEP membership for all members preparing wills in England and Wales. The Code's requirements are less prescriptive than WIQS but establish a clear ethical and professional baseline, particularly valuable for practitioners who are STEP members but practise in firms not pursuing WIQS accreditation. The Code's principles on conflicts of interest and client confidentiality complement the SRA's regulatory framework by providing profession-specific guidance tailored to testamentary work.

2.4 The Regulatory Gap

The significance of these three frameworks is heightened by will writing's status as a non-reserved legal activity. The Legal Services Act 2007 does not include will writing among its reserved activities.14 The Legal Services Board recommended reservation in February 2013, but Lord Chancellor Chris Grayling rejected the recommendation, calling for self-regulatory alternatives. This position remains unchanged as of January 2026. Legal Services Board research estimates up to 208,000 unregulated providers in England and Wales, with the unregulated sector accounting for up to 9% of the total individual consumer legal services market -- and will-writing market share likely significantly higher.14

The CMA's intervention on 9 October 2024 underscored the consumer protection consequences of this gap. The CMA published consumer protection compliance guidance for unregulated will writing providers and issued advisory letters to seven providers identified as engaging in aggressive upselling, refusal of refunds, and complaint-handling failures.15 The Digital Markets, Competition and Consumer Act 2024 will empower the CMA to determine breaches and impose fines of up to 10% of annual turnover. For regulated solicitor practices, this external scrutiny of unregulated competitors creates both a competitive opportunity and a reputational imperative: robust quality frameworks distinguish regulated practice from the increasingly scrutinised unregulated market.

3. Building the Framework: Operational Components

A defensible quality assurance framework translates regulatory obligations and accreditation standards into documented operational systems. The following four components map directly to the specific gaps identified in the SRA thematic review and the complaint categories dominating Legal Ombudsman data.

3.1 Competence Management

The SRA thematic review finding that 6 of 10 fee earners were unaware of their competence obligations points to a documentation and communication failure, not necessarily a skills deficit.2 A robust competence management system addresses this through three elements.

First, a written continuing competence policy accessible to all fee earners, with documented acknowledgement of receipt and annual reconfirmation. The thematic review found that even where policies existed, staff awareness was insufficient -- 7 of 15 firms with policies had relevant personnel unaware of them.1 A policy that exists only in a compliance manual reviewed at induction and never revisited fails the accessibility test the SRA implicitly requires.

Second, structured learning records that go beyond listing activities. The SRA's probate training records review found that 66 of 100 solicitors simply listed learning activities without evidence of needs identification, reflection, or effectiveness evaluation. Only 8 of 30 records included effectiveness evaluation.16 A compliant learning record should document: the identified development need, linked to practice area risks or regulatory changes; the activity undertaken; reflective analysis of its impact on practice; and a measurable assessment of effectiveness, such as improved file audit scores or reduced complaint rates.

Third, firm-level competence monitoring that tracks individual development against the requirements of the Code of Conduct for Solicitors at paragraph 3.3 and the Code of Conduct for Firms at paragraphs 4.3 and 4.4.9 This monitoring function should sit with the COLP or a designated quality lead, with documented quarterly review cycles and an annual competence assessment for each fee earner engaged in will writing and estate administration.

3.2 Supervision and File Review

The finding that only 9 of 30 files showed evidence of supervision, while all fee earners believed supervision was adequate, reveals a critical gap between informal practice and documented assurance.3 The framework requires three supervision tiers.

Routine file sampling should cover a representative proportion of each fee earner's work, with documented review using a structured checklist based on the SRA's four categories of quality failure: inadequacy, legality, inconsistency, and insufficient detail.11 Sampling frequency should be risk-adjusted, with higher proportions for newly qualified solicitors, paralegals, and staff returning from extended absence. A minimum sampling rate -- such as 10% of files per quarter per fee earner -- provides a baseline that can be escalated based on audit findings.

Peer review for senior practitioners addresses the thematic review finding that 12 of 25 heads of department received no oversight.1 Annual peer review of a sample of senior-level files, conducted by a practitioner of equivalent or greater seniority (including, where necessary, an external reviewer), provides a documented quality check at the level most likely to escape routine supervision. The absence of senior-level oversight is a material risk factor: senior practitioners typically handle the most complex estates and the highest-value instructions, where drafting failures carry the greatest financial and reputational consequences.

Supervision records should be contemporaneous and retained on the file. In the event of a negligence claim or SRA investigation, the absence of documented supervision may be treated as evidence of its absence in fact. The standard of proof in regulatory proceedings -- the balance of probabilities -- makes this a material risk that cannot be mitigated retrospectively.

3.3 Client Communication Protocols

Legal Ombudsman data consistently identifies communication, cost transparency, and delay as the dominant complaint categories.6 A quality framework must systematically address each through documented, auditable processes.

Cost transparency protocols should require written cost estimates at the outset of every instruction, with documented client acknowledgement. The SRA thematic review found that 4 of 50 files significantly exceeded cost estimates without prior warning, and 2 of 30 files contained no costs information whatsoever.1 Any material variation from the original estimate must be communicated and consented to before being incurred. The WIQS Client Charter standard -- providing clear information about costs and timescales -- offers a practical benchmark for formalising these commitments.12

Timescale management should include documented key-date milestones and proactive client communication when delays arise. The rising trajectory of delay complaints -- increasing for five consecutive quarters as of Q2 2025/26 -- suggests that reactive communication after delays occur is insufficient.6 An automated milestone-tracking system, with trigger points for client updates at defined intervals (for example, every 21 days without substantive progress), converts an otherwise discretionary communication practice into a systematic process.

Vulnerability identification at client intake is an area where the SRA thematic review found consistent good practice, noting that firms were meeting the needs of vulnerable clients.1 Practices should document their vulnerability screening protocols and ensure they are applied systematically, with recorded outcomes informing the approach to capacity assessment and client communication throughout the matter.

3.4 Will Drafting Quality Controls

Substantive drafting quality requires controls at three stages: capacity assessment, drafting review, and execution.

Capacity assessment protocols should be documented and consistently applied. Banks v Goodfellow (1870) remains the governing test for testamentary capacity as of January 2026, as confirmed by Leonard v Leonard [2024] EWHC 321 (Ch), which held that the test has "stood the test of time."17 The Mental Capacity Act 2005 does not override the existing common law position. Practitioners should maintain a structured capacity assessment template based on the four limbs of Banks v Goodfellow, recording their assessment contemporaneously on the client file. Where concerns about capacity arise, the assessment should document the specific limb or limbs engaged, any medical evidence obtained, and the practitioner's reasoned conclusion.

Conflict-of-interest governance requires particular attention where the firm or a partner is appointed as executor. The thematic review finding that only 12 of 23 firms acting as executors had conflict controls highlights a structural governance gap.1 A documented conflicts policy, with sign-off by an independent partner for any appointment of the firm as executor, provides a proportionate safeguard. Beneficiary identity checks -- conducted by only 17 of 25 firms in the thematic review -- should be mandatory and recorded.1

Drafting review against the SRA's four-category quality taxonomy ensures systematic assessment beyond individual reviewer judgement.11 A checklist-based approach, cross-referencing inadequacy, legality, inconsistency, and insufficient detail, embeds the regulator's own quality criteria into routine workflow and generates auditable evidence of quality control.

4. Forward Compatibility: The Law Commission Draft Wills Bill

The Law Commission published its Modernising Wills final report and draft Bill for a new Wills Act on 16 May 2025, containing 31 proposals across approximately 500 pages.18 The Government, through Sarah Sackman KC MP, stated that the reforms "deserve detailed consideration" and acknowledged that "the current law is outdated," but no legislative timetable has been confirmed as of January 2026.19 The Government's interim response, due by November 2025 under the Lord Chancellor-Law Commission Protocol, had not been published as of the article date; the Law Society publicly criticised the absence of any Government movement on the reforms six months after publication.20 Practices should conduct gap analysis against the draft Bill's key provisions while avoiding premature implementation of provisions that have not been enacted.

4.1 Electronic Wills

The draft Bill proposes enabling electronic wills to be formally valid, subject to requirements ensuring safety and reliability through a "reliable system" with "remote presence" provisions.18 If enacted, this would require practices to evaluate document management systems, electronic signature platforms, and remote witnessing technology against the statutory reliability criteria. Current quality frameworks should be assessed for their capacity to accommodate digital execution workflows without compromising the evidential integrity requirements that electronic wills would demand. No operational changes are warranted until legislative enactment, but practices may wish to audit their existing digital infrastructure against the draft Bill's reliability criteria as a readiness exercise, identifying capability gaps that would require procurement lead times to address.

4.2 Statutory Capacity Test

The draft Bill proposes replacing the Banks v Goodfellow common law test with a statutory test based on the Mental Capacity Act 2005, while retaining tailored provisions mirroring the four limbs in substance.18 As Banks v Goodfellow remains current law,17 practices should not alter their capacity assessment protocols. However, gap analysis is prudent: the MCA 2005 framework introduces a functional assessment approach, a diagnostic threshold, and a best-interests decision-making structure that differ from the common law test in emphasis if not wholly in substance. Practices familiar with the MCA 2005 through their Court of Protection work would face a shorter transition than those relying exclusively on common law principles. Capacity assessment templates that accommodate both the current Banks v Goodfellow limbs and the MCA 2005 functional criteria would be well positioned for transition if and when legislation proceeds.

4.3 Expanded Rectification and Undue Influence

The draft Bill proposes that courts be empowered to rectify wills where a drafter's lack of understanding caused the language not to reflect the testator's intentions.18 This expanded rectification power would create a direct accountability mechanism for drafter competence, making documented quality controls not merely a compliance measure but a defence against judicial scrutiny of drafting standards. The current rectification jurisdiction under section 20 of the Administration of Justice Act 1982 is limited to clerical errors or failures to give effect to instructions; the proposed expansion to drafter comprehension failures raises the stakes for quality assurance significantly.

On undue influence, the draft Bill proposes that courts may infer undue influence where reasonable grounds exist, with the burden of proof shifting to the person seeking to uphold the will.18 This reversal would elevate the importance of contemporaneous file documentation evidencing the testator's independent decision-making, particularly in cases involving elderly clients, those with complex family dynamics, or situations where a beneficiary has been involved in the will preparation process.

5. Measuring Framework Effectiveness

A quality framework that cannot demonstrate its own effectiveness fails its primary purpose. Measurable outcomes should be tracked across four dimensions, each linked to the regulatory evidence base.

First, complaints metrics: the ratio of complaints to matters handled, the proportion resolved internally versus escalated to the Legal Ombudsman, and the outcomes of any LeO investigations. Benchmarking against the published LeO sector averages -- an 81% poor-service rate in Q1 2025/26 for wills and probate -- provides an external reference point.5 A practice achieving a materially lower complaint rate than the sector average can evidence its quality framework's effectiveness in quantitative terms.

Second, SRA engagement: the volume and nature of any SRA reports, enquiries, or referrals concerning the practice. The SRA's Annual Assessment of Continuing Competence in 2024 noted that the regulator received 11,174 reports in 2023 (up from 10,090 in 2022), with probate generating the third-highest volume of reports and LeO complaints.21 Probate also generated the largest and most frequent Compensation Fund payments, making the practice area a regulatory priority for the foreseeable future.

Third, accreditation outcomes: for WIQS-accredited firms, annual re-accreditation results and audit findings provide structured external validation. Practices not pursuing WIQS may consider self-assessment against the WIQS protocol as an internal benchmarking exercise, applying the same standards without the formal accreditation process.12 The annual audit cycle provides a natural rhythm for quality review that should be supplemented by more frequent internal sampling.

Fourth, internal file audit results: tracking compliance rates against the drafting quality checklist, supervision documentation standards, and cost communication protocols over time. A declining compliance trend should trigger immediate management review, not await the next external audit cycle. The SRA thematic review's methodology -- examining files, interviewing fee earners, and reviewing documentation -- offers a model for internal audit design that practices can replicate on a self-assessment basis.

Conclusion

The convergence of SRA thematic review findings, Legal Ombudsman complaints data, and Compensation Fund exposure creates an unusually well-evidenced case for structured quality assurance in will writing practices. The regulatory evidence points consistently to process and documentation failures rather than endemic competence deficits: firms were performing adequate work but failing to document competence policies, supervision, and cost communication to a defensible standard.

The three principal quality frameworks -- SRA Standards and Regulations, WIQS accreditation, and the STEP Code for Will Preparation -- provide complementary layers that, mapped together, address the full range of identified quality gaps. The Law Commission's draft Wills Bill introduces a further dimension: practices that build quality systems now, with gap analysis against the draft Bill's provisions, position themselves for legislative change regardless of when or whether that change arrives.

The practice that can demonstrate documented, evidence-based quality systems will be best positioned -- not merely for regulatory compliance, but as a competitive differentiator in a market where unregulated providers face increasing CMA scrutiny and regulated firms face rising client expectations calibrated by the Ombudsman's published outcomes data.

CPD Declaration

Estimated Reading Time: 22 minutes Technical Level: Advanced Practice Areas: Private Client, Wills and Probate, Practice Management, Regulatory Compliance

Learning Objectives

Upon completing this article, practitioners will be able to:

  1. Identify the specific competence, supervision, and governance gaps revealed by the SRA's December 2024 thematic review of probate and estate administration
  2. Evaluate the complementary roles of the SRA Standards and Regulations, WIQS accreditation, and STEP Code for Will Preparation in constructing a multi-layered quality assurance framework
  3. Design an operational quality framework addressing competence management, supervision documentation, client communication protocols, and will drafting quality controls mapped to specific regulatory findings
  4. Analyse the implications of the Law Commission's draft Wills Bill for current quality assurance systems, distinguishing between provisions requiring gap analysis and those requiring no action pending enactment

SRA Competency Mapping

  • Maintaining competence and legal knowledge (SRA Competence Statement, Section A)
  • Working within the SRA regulatory framework and understanding professional obligations (SRA Competence Statement, Section B)
  • Managing legal and professional risk within the practice (SRA Competence Statement, Section D)

Reflective Questions

  1. How does the supervision documentation in the practice compare against the SRA thematic review finding that only 9 of 30 files showed evidence of supervision, and what specific steps would address any identified gaps?
  2. To what extent does the practice's continuing competence policy meet the standard of documented needs identification, structured learning, reflective analysis, and effectiveness evaluation identified by the SRA's probate training records review?
  3. What gap analysis would be required to assess the practice's readiness for the electronic wills and statutory capacity test provisions of the draft Wills Bill, and what priority should this analysis receive given the absence of a confirmed legislative timetable?

Professional Disclaimer

The information presented reflects the regulatory and legislative position as of 2026-01-27. Regulations, tax rules, and professional guidance are subject to change. Readers should independently verify all information before acting and seek advice from appropriately qualified solicitors, financial advisors, or other professionals for their specific circumstances.

Neither WUHLD nor the author accepts liability for any actions taken or decisions made based on the content of this article. Professional readers are reminded of their own regulatory obligations and duty of care to their clients.

Footnotes

Footnotes

  1. SRA Thematic Review of Probate and Estate Administration (13 December 2024). https://www.sra.org.uk/sra/research-publications/probate-administration-thematic-review/ ↩ ↩2 ↩3 ↩4 ↩5 ↩6 ↩7 ↩8 ↩9

  2. SRA Thematic Review of Probate and Estate Administration (13 December 2024). https://www.sra.org.uk/sra/research-publications/probate-administration-thematic-review/ ↩ ↩2

  3. SRA Thematic Review of Probate and Estate Administration (13 December 2024). https://www.sra.org.uk/sra/research-publications/probate-administration-thematic-review/ ↩ ↩2

  4. Legal Ombudsman 2024/25 Annual Complaints Data and Insight. https://www.legalombudsman.org.uk/information-centre/data-centre/complaints-data/legal-ombudsman-202425-annual-complaints-data-and-insight/ ↩ ↩2

  5. Legal Ombudsman 2025/26 Q1 Complaints Data. https://www.legalombudsman.org.uk/information-centre/data-centre/complaints-data/202526-quarter-1-complaints-data/ ↩ ↩2

  6. Legal Ombudsman 2025/26 Q2 Complaints Data. https://www.legalombudsman.org.uk/information-centre/data-centre/complaints-data/202526-quarter-2-complaints-data/ ↩ ↩2 ↩3

  7. Legal Ombudsman Spotlight on Probate (18 December 2025). https://www.legalombudsman.org.uk/information-centre/news/spotlight-on-probate-how-to-be-reasonable/ ↩

  8. SRA Compensation Fund Annual Report and Financial Statement (Year ended October 2024). https://www.sra.org.uk/sra/research-publications/sra-compensation-fund-annual-report-financial-statement-october-2024/ ↩

  9. SRA Code of Conduct for Solicitors, RELs, RFLs and RSLs (effective 11 April 2025). https://www.sra.org.uk/solicitors/standards-regulations/code-conduct-solicitors/ ↩ ↩2

  10. SRA Principles (effective 11 April 2025). https://www.sra.org.uk/solicitors/standards-regulations/principles/ ↩

  11. SRA Guidance: Drafting and Preparation of Wills. https://www.sra.org.uk/solicitors/guidance/drafting-preparation-wills/ ↩ ↩2 ↩3

  12. Law Society Wills and Inheritance Quality Scheme (WIQS). https://www.lawsociety.org.uk/topics/firm-accreditations/wills-and-inheritance-quality-scheme/ ↩ ↩2 ↩3 ↩4

  13. STEP Code for Will Preparation (effective 1 April 2014). https://www.step.org/public/step-will-code ↩

  14. Legal Services Board Review of Will-Writing Regulation. https://legalservicesboard.org.uk/our-work/work-related-to-previous-years/reviewing-the-scope-of-regulation-will-writing ↩ ↩2

  15. CMA Cautions Will Writing and Legal Service Providers (9 October 2024). https://www.gov.uk/government/news/cma-cautions-will-writing-and-legal-service-providers-as-new-guidance-launched ↩

  16. SRA Probate Training Records Review. https://www.sra.org.uk/sra/research-publications/probate-training-records-review/ ↩

  17. Leonard v Leonard [2024] EWHC 321 (Ch). https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Ch/2024/321.html ↩ ↩2

  18. Law Commission Modernising Wills Final Report and Draft Bill (16 May 2025). https://lawcom.gov.uk/project/wills/ ↩ ↩2 ↩3 ↩4 ↩5

  19. Macfarlanes Analysis of Law Commission Modernising Wills Report. https://www.macfarlanes.com/what-we-think/102eli5/modernising-wills-the-law-commission-publishes-its-final-report-102kbjb/ ↩

  20. Law Society, "No Will to Act on Wills Reform" (November 2025). https://www.lawsociety.org.uk/contact-or-visit-us/press-office/press-releases/no-will-to-act-on-wills-reform ↩

  21. SRA Annual Assessment of Continuing Competence 2024. https://www.sra.org.uk/sra/research-publications/annual-assessment-continuing-competence-2024/ ↩